Evolution happens

[Gene2memE]

Why, of course. I remember being taught about that stuff in Grade 2. It was so boring!

So, your play is ignorance

For those interested:

The evidence at the moment is that humans developed most of the the anatomical features we would consider normal today about 350,000 to 260,000 years ago, likely as the result of the admixture of older homo species in Eastern and Southern Africa. Further admixture with other hominin species (neanderthals, denisovans and at least two other as yet unidentified hominins) occurred in a number of waves as there were successive waves of migration both out of Africa and around Europe and Asia.

Behavioural modernity emerged somewhere around 150,000 to 120,000 years ago, predominantly with the start of the stone tool industries through the Eastern and Northern seaboards of Africa.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, such stories are necessary to help prop up the myth ... that humans are 300,000 years old.

Not "stories", archeology. These things have all been discovered and dated.

Do you accuse the archeologists of being liars?

 

[Buzzard3]

Humans have much bigger more complicated brains than other apes... but we also have a whole lot of transitional fossils demonstrating this change.

... none of which explains why, if humans and chimps share a common ancestor, humans ended up infinitely more intelligent than chimps (except for the ones that beat humans into space).

 

[sjastro]

Do you know the difference between anatomical modernity and behavioural modernity?



Except Humans have been:

Wearing clothes for at least 150,000 years
Making jewelry for at least 90,000 years
Making glues for at least 70,000 years
Making art for at least 65,000 years
Playing music for at least 50,000 years
Weaving for at least 35,000 years
Making ceramics for at least 28,000 years
Planting fields for at least 23,000 years
Domesticating animals for at least 16,000 years
Doing dentistry for at least 9,000 years
Smelting metals and making bricks for at least 7,000 years

Either all of this happened before humans "suddenly became brainy", or your potted hypothesis is incorrect.

Some more info.
The populating of Australia via Wallacea required the use of seacraft at least 60,000 years ago.
This could extend out to more than 120,000 years ago based on pollen analysis and charcoal dating of various sites indicating possible human occupation.

On the flip site the ancient Egyptians reached the pinnacle of pyramid building by the 4th dynasty but only started using the wheel during the second intermediate period some 800 years later (about 4,000 years ago) as the Egyptologist Chris Naunton describes.

Hi Steven,
As far as we know the wheel was introduced to Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (13th - 17th Dynasties) by the ‘Hyksos’ group who originated somewhere in the Levant. So, it would not have been in use at the time of the construction of the Giza pyramids. As far as we are aware, the large stone blocks that were used to build the pyramids were hauled along, probably on sleds or similar, by ropes.
Best wishes,
Chris

Dr Chris Naunton, Egyptologist
@chrisnaunton / www.chrisnaunton.com
LOCKDOWN LECTURES ONLINE - details here
SUPPORT MY WORK - see here
Egyptologists’ Notebooks - OUT NOW - see here
Searching for the Lost Tombs of Egypt - NOW IN PAPERBACK - see here

 

[Shemjaza]

According to Darwinist folklore, humans have existed for 300,000 years, but the wheel was invented only about 6000 years ago and writing was invented only about 5000 years ago. Funny that.

Looks like humans were morons for 294,000 years and then they suddenly became brainy about 6000 years ago and started inventing all kinds of clever stuff. Fascinating. A curious case of Punctuated Equilibrium, maybe?

Not in the least.

Are you smarter than Leonardo da Vinci, because you are undoubtedly better educated about physics, engineering and technology.

King Solomon was he wise... or stupid because he couldn't invent electricity?

Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison developed AC and DC power... but didn't create a super computer or nuclear power station.

A cave man 25 thousand years ago is only a childhood education, a shower and change of clothes from being the same as you or me.

What about all the indigenous people who lived in deep deserts or thick jungles? They aren't measurably less intelligent than other humans, they just didn't have much technology in their culture.

Ignorance and unintelligence are completely separate things.

... none of which explains why, if humans and chimps share a common ancestor, humans ended up infinitely more intelligent than chimps

Different environment and some dumb luck.

Humans are not that much more intelligent than chimps... it just turns out that the small increase in ability to think abstractly and communicate makes an extremely big difference to technological capacity.

(except for the ones that beat humans into space).

 

[SelfSim]

... none of which explains why, if humans and chimps share a common ancestor, humans ended up infinitely more intelligent than chimps (except for the ones that beat humans into space).

Researchers discover genes unique to humans in search for source of our evolutionary distinctiveness:

The team utilized genome alignment tools to compare the most recent drafts of human and chimpanzee genomes, meticulously scanning for novel genetic elements unique to humans.

The short arm of chrosomome 21 can explain the divergence from primates:

Although the team found that the long arm of human chromosome 21 aligns well with that of other extant ape species, the short arm aligned poorly, suggesting that this region of the human genome has recently and substantially diverged from that of other primates.

When?:

The team therefore theorized that the microRNA (miRNA) genes found in that region [miR3648 and miR6724] likely evolved in the time since the chimpanzee and human lineages split, sometime in the last seven million years, and are specific to humans.

Linkage with human brain:

Using computational tools, the team discovered with a high degree of likelihood that the predicted gene targets of the relevant miRNAs are related to embryonic development. Both miR3648 and miR6724 have been detected in tissues throughout the human body, including the brain, and may conceivably play a role in the evolution of humankind's most unique organ. The findings point to the intriguing idea that these microRNA genes contributed to the distinct evolution of our species and the uniqueness of humankind.

Gene regulation can produce big genome impacts:

Thanks to their small size and structural simplicity, miRNA genes have fewer barriers to de novo creation than other gene types. MicroRNA genes can be extremely prolific in their regulation of other genes, meaning that modest changes to DNA sequence can result in wide-ranging impacts to the human genome. The creation of miR3648 and miR6724 serve as excellent examples of this process.

 

[Buzzard3]

Not "stories", archeology. These things have all been discovered and dated.

Do you accuse the archeologists of being liars?

Humans didn't start domestcating animals until less than 10,000 years ago. So according to Darwinist folklore, it took our ancestors at least 290,000 years to discover that one!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Humans didn't start domestcating animals until less than 10,000 years ago. So according to Darwinist folklore, it took our ancestors at least 290,000 years to discover that one!

And? Why is that a problem for you?

 

[Shemjaza]

Humans didn't start domestcating animals until less than 10,000 years ago. So according to Darwinist folklore, it took our ancestors at least 290,000 years to discover that one!

Do you have a point to make?

Technology isn't constant or even consistent.

You're an Australian, think about the technology the indigenous peoples had before the Europeans came.


I don't think you answered my question earlier: What science do you reject? Is it just biology, geology and archaeology? Or do you dispute physics and astrophysics too?

 

[Buzzard3]

Not "stories", archeology. These things have all been discovered and dated.

Do you accuse the archeologists of being liars?

"liars"? Perish the thought! Everyone knows that scientists are incapable of lies and deceit.

Not sure what their problem is.
Delusion, maybe ... resulting in the need to "bend" the evidence to fit a preconception.
Or erroneous dating methods based on false assumptions based on a preconception.

Maybe they're victims of this:
"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore GOD SENDS UPON THEM A STRONG DELUSION, TO MAKE THEM BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2Thess 2:8-12)


Have you heard of Pierre-Paul Grasse (1895-1985)? He was a zoologist and one of France's greatest-ever scientists. He believed the fossil record revealed a pattern of evolution, but thought the Darwinian explanation for it to be nonsense that has tainted many fields of science.

Here are a couple of his quotes:
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution (he means Darwinian evolutionary theory), considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but
not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity
of their beliefs."

"Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction, whether it be in the field of ecology, ethology, sociology, demography (dynamics of populations), genetics (so-called evolutionary genetics), or paleontology. This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems."
EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS, TRANS. FROM FRENCH (ACADEMIC PRESS: NEW YORK, NY, 1977) P.8 NOV 30 . 1977

 

[Buzzard3]

And? Why is that a problem for you?

It's not a problem for me. It's a problem for anyone who thinks humans have existed for 300,000 years.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thank you for taking the time to compile that reply to my question.

You're welcome.

 

[Shemjaza]

"liars"? Perish the thought! Everyone knows that scientists are incapable of lies and deceit.

Not sure what their problem is.
Delusion, maybe ... resulting in the need to "bend" the evidence to fit a preconception.
Or erroneous dating methods based on false assumptions based on a preconception.

Maybe they're victims of this:
"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore GOD SENDS UPON THEM A STRONG DELUSION, TO MAKE THEM BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2Thess 2:8-12)


Have you heard of Pierre-Paul Grasse (1895-1985)? He was a zoologist and one of France's greatest-ever scientists. He believed the fossil record revealed a pattern of evolution, but thought the Darwinian explanation for it to be nonsense that has tainted many fields of science.

Here are a couple of his quotes:
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution (he means Darwinian evolutionary theory), considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but
not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity
of their beliefs."

"Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction, whether it be in the field of ecology, ethology, sociology, demography (dynamics of populations), genetics (so-called evolutionary genetics), or paleontology. This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems."
EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS, TRANS. FROM FRENCH (ACADEMIC PRESS: NEW YORK, NY, 1977) P.8 NOV 30 . 1977

Accusations and quotes from long dead men... not evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Phew! Once again, thank you for your reply. It will take a while for my fragile, egg-shell mind to digest all that.

And that's just a rough outline! But I hope that giving the bigger picture should help explain how it all hangs together.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not a problem for me. It's a problem for anyone who thinks humans have existed for 300,000 years.

Except that there's no reason that as soon as humans came onto the scene, we should have just instantly been able to do everything we can do now.

It's just hubris to think so.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Did you come from your grandfather?

No. I descended from him.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Thank you for QED'ing Post 715.

And thankyou for donating to UNICEF.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Sorry, I'll re-word that ... Darwinists claim that humans DID evolve from fish.

And still. NO THEY DO NOT>

 

[Mr Laurier]

According to Darwinist folklore,

Nothing.
There remains no Darwinist folklore.
No tales of brave ancient Darwinists, battling monsters to create the Darwinist civilization

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I descended from him.

Tomato / Tomatto

Potato / Potatto